On behalf of the Czech Republic
Constitutional Court decided on 30 October 2002 in plenary on the proposal
group of deputies to annul § 13 of Act no. 256/2000 Coll., On the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
and amending some laws (Act on the State
agricultural intervention Fund) and § 4 para. 3, § 5 para. 3, § 7 and § 13
Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll., on setting production quotas for sugar quota years
2001/2002 to 2004/2005,
§ 4 para. 3, § 5 para. 3, § 7 and § 13 of Government Regulation no.
114/2001 Coll., On setting production quotas for sugar quota years 2001/2002 to 2004
/ 2005, shall be canceled on the day of its publication in the Collection of laws
Proposal to annul § 13 of Act no. 256/2000 Coll., On the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
and amending some laws (Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
) is dismissed.
Group of deputies in its proposal filed under Art. 87 paragraph. 1 point. a) a
b) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter "Constitution") and § 64 para. 1 point. b) and
paragraph. 2 point. b) Act no. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, says
Act no. 256/2000 Coll., on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund and
amending some laws (Act on the State Agricultural || | intervention Fund), prohibits the production of agricultural goods. In its treatment
is contrary to the freedom of business according to Art. 26 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"). Freedom of entrepreneurship as a performance
certain occupations can by law only to restrict the Charter
or make it subject to conditions, a complete ban is not possible.
Such a ban by the petitioner constitutes a penalty levy of 115%
minimum or regulated prices for agricultural products exceeding
individual production quotas (§ 13 of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
). It is a sanction that strikes at the law expressly
not prohibited. Regulation by production quotas has led to the definition
preferred category called. Strategic sugar producers without
the choice could affect other producers. In conjunction with this differentiation
freedom of enterprise inequality occurs according to Art. 1 and Art. 3. 1
Charter. That reflects the free distribution of production quotas among current
manufacturers and other potential manufacturers remain split
only a small margin. Omission by a group of deputies may be those producers -
equipment owners, who are with high financial costs in the period before the Act
renovating and in the reference period did not produce sugar
. In a similar position are those who have purchased the product.
Discrimination between entrepreneurs with production quotas and
entrepreneurs who do not have it, it creates discrimination in the right to ownership
. This is because according to Article. 11 of the Charter the same legal content and
protection. Said the owners of the plant is prohibited by law in fact
produce such commodities State decision, without
compensation. Their property is applying production quotas
degraded, and thus gives it a different content and reduces its protection.
Group of deputies points out that the government had previously tried to regulate the production of sugar
Regulation no. 51/2000 Coll., Laying down measures and
state's share in the creation of conditions to ensure and maintain production of sugar beet
and sugar and stabilize the sugar market. This legislation, the Constitutional Court finding
no. 96/2001 Coll. Although defeated, however, from 14. 3. 2000 to 12. 3. 2001
paid. During this period, it created any new applicants
unfavorable conditions for the start of production and then for the allocation of quotas by
Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll.
Group of deputies admitted that the legislature has in issuing ordinary
laws take into account the general interest in adjusting the ratios of
economic sectors, on the other hand, has to consider the existence of public interest.
Intervention, however, must respect the balance between the general interest and individual rights
. Between the means employed and the aims pursued
must be proportionality. Otherwise, as highlighted by the Constitutional Court already finding out
15th 2nd 1994 sp. Nos. Pl. US 35/93 [promulgated as no. 49/1994 Coll.
and published in the Collection of Decisions of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter
"Collection"), volume 1, judgment no. 7], the relevant regulation
gets into conflict with Art. 4 par. 4. regulation of agricultural
Production by a group of MPs suggests the public interest, not only in
connection with the preparation for accession to the European Union.
Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund, however, specifies restrictions on freedom of entrepreneurship in agriculture
through production quotas disproportionately in general, because it makes
circuit of agricultural products, which can be subjected to regulation. Thus empowering
State Agricultural Intervention Fund (hereinafter the "Fund") for infringement of rights
producers without any further legal definition. This threatens its misuse.
Statutory reference to international agreements (§ 1 para. 2)
understands a group of deputies as a reference to the European Community regulations, particularly
Council Regulation EC no. 2038/1999. Generated by controlling the production of sugar
applies only for a limited time, while the Law on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund expects
repeated, and thereby unlimited application of quotas
Group of MPs concludes denial of judicial review (Art. 36 of the Charter)
in the express limitations (§ 5 para. 5 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
) the Administrative Code only to requests for support and
not on other decisions, including decisions on the allocation
quotas or imposing punitive levy.
Group of deputies recalls that unconstitutional should be considered
sub-statutory delegation to the creation of law (§ 4 para. 3 of the Government Regulation no.
114/2001 Coll.), If the Fund determined the amount of the reserve, which will be published
in the Journal of the Ministry of agriculture. Also considers unconstitutional delegation
Ministry of Finance to determine the minimum price for sugar. In both cases
refers to the Constitutional Court judgment no. 96/2001 Coll., Under which the legislature can not
area of regulation of relations designed to adjust the law
delegate to the executive and thereby actually resign his
legislative duty; a fortiori, the executive branch is not entitled to this treatment
appropriated itself. Both provisions are therefore contrary to Art. 79 of the Constitution
and also the first with § 12 para. 3 and the other with § 12 para. 4 of the
State Agricultural Intervention Fund.
Contested government also does not define any quality characteristics of sugar
which sets production quotas. For they can not be considered a reference in
footnote to Decree no. 334/1997 Coll., Which implements § 18
point. a), d), j) and k) of the Act no. 110/1997 Coll., on food and
tobacco products and amending and supplementing some related laws
for natural sweeteners, honey, sugar confectionery, cocoa || | powder and mixtures of cocoa and sugar, chocolate and chocolate confectionary,
amended by Decree no. 94/2000 Coll. The Constitutional Court ruled that the purpose
footnotes is just a clarification of the rules and that they have no legal significance
. Definition of the system of production quotas as incomplete
does not meet the requirement of the law.
The expansion proposal, which the Constitutional Court has admitted a group of MPs asking
also repeal § 7 of Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll. The reason, according
petitioner's lack of statutory authority to delegate allocation
production quotas for sugar and reserves from the government to fund, but it
Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund to explicitly authorizes.
Clear mandate to include § 4, 7 and 16 of Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll. For
petitioner considers insufficient permissions Fund quota system
qualify under § 1 second point. d) of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
. In relation to production quotas are contrary
diverse competences vested in the government [§ 3 para. 3 point. a)
§ 12 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund]. § 4, 6 and 7
Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll. They are unconstitutional because
constitute unlawful delegation of the exercise of public power.
Position of the public administration, moreover, explicitly recognizes the Fund only in determining the support
(§ 5 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund).
Group of deputies proposed the annulment of § 13 of Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll. for its inconsistency with Article
. 79 of the Constitution, because the government has delegated its statutory duty to another
authority when he authorized the Ministry of Finance to set the minimum price for sugar
marketed in the Czech Republic, in violation of § 12 para. 4 of the Law on State
agricultural intervention Fund.
Deputies in its statement that the proposal of deputies
is unfounded, because everyone has the opportunity to freely decide whether and
Under what conditions in certain areas of business.
State intervention must respect a reasonable balance between the general interest and
requirement to protect fundamental rights. There must be a reasonable relationship
proportionality between the means and the aims pursued.
Introduction of sanctions in the production quota system following restrictions on the rights guaranteed
business for all without distinction, the goal is no
balance between production and sales. Even in the European Union is not perceived control
agriculture as a violation of the principle of equal rights business.
The legislature may therefore, within the limits of the guaranteed fundamental rights
define or influence the type and number of operators in a particular sector or
somewhat restrict contractual freedom when production on the market.
Deputies points to the limits specified in Article. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter.
These rights are fundamentally different from the fundamental rights and the possibility
legislature to determine their limitations is greater. Deputies
agrees with the opinions on the issue of regulation that the Constitutional Court
interested in judgments no. 231/2000 Coll. and no. 410/2001 Coll. Recalls that
§ 13 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund adopted as
amendment. The government's proposal was in its assessment difficult in practice
feasible. And why not consider the proposal as justified.
Legal status under the system of production quotas would repeal this provision
improved. Deputies states that the Act was duly approved
signed by the appropriate constitutional officials and promulgated in the Official Gazette.
Is convinced that the Act is consistent with the Constitution, the constitutional order
and our legal order.
Senate in response to the petition points out that during the discussion of the draft Law
not raised constitutional objections, and therefore in this regard
acted. Penalties according to § 13 of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
considered as an instrument to become an anticipated stabilization of agrarian
market forces. According to him, the sanctions do not constitute a means of discrimination
among entrepreneurs. Equality is guaranteed by § 12 para. 7 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
, which allows new entrants to enter the market
. It does not agree with the view that the administrative procedure to decide on
removal under § 13 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
apply. Decisions are also reviewed in court under Art. 36
Czech government in its response to the petition states that the main objective
system of production quotas for sugar is to stabilize the market and to protect
all the participants from negative fluctuations. The disputed regulation
Government states that the regulation is fully in line with the rules that apply
European Union and is based on the domestic and the export share of the quota.
The main motivation is to maintain production of sugar beet at the historically recent level
including some overproduction. Another system of regulation would conflict with
model applied in the European Union. This would Czech Republic has failed to fulfill an obligation under
approximation of the Europe Agreement between
Czech Republic on the one hand and the European Communities and their Member States
on the other hand no. 7/1995 Coll. (Art. 69-71).
Government further states that defining how fulfilling and releasing reserves.
Disclosure of related data in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture
informational purposes only. The alleged discrimination between entrepreneurs
who produce or not produce sugar, indicates that it is generally possible quota
redeem or request to receive quotas from the reserve.
Stringent conditions for those who did not produce sugar, are understandable because not attest
their ability to produce sugar. The provisions of § 5 para. 3 of the Government Regulation No.
. 114/2001 Coll. It states that it contains only the obligation to indicate certain data in
request. Government refers in this context to the arguments about the nature and limits
equality expressed in the Constitutional Court judgment no. 410/2001 Coll.
The proposal to repeal the provisions on the authorization of the Ministry of Finance points
to its jurisdiction under the Act no. 526/1990 Coll., On prices, as amended
. They argue, therefore, that the contested provisions of Government Regulation No.
. 114/2001 Coll. violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of producers.
Therefore proposes rejection of the proposal.
In its observations on the draft widespread government points out that the reason for
create a system of production quotas for sugar is to establish principles
Community law into Czech law, both because of the demands
Association Agreement and for the prevention of adverse effects on sensitive agriculture
after the planned accession to the European Union, and
recalling the institute of national production quotas. The objection
spoken in the expansion draft government states that the Fund's executive body, which
without a discretion is pursuing a policy designed
government regulation. Such application of production quotas is not called
Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll., But especially
Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund, whose § 1 par. 2 point. d) provides that
in accordance with the law and international treaties and on the basis
government regulations issued to implement this Act implements measures and introduces market
orders to stabilize the markets for agricultural products and foodstuffs as well
the use of production quotas. The government points to
acceptance of the system of milk production quotas by the Constitutional Court, which alone
method of determining production quotas did not find unconstitutional. Therefore it proposes
that the proposal was rejected in its entirety.
The draft opinion also attracted the Ministry of Agriculture (hereinafter
"Ministry") and the State Agricultural Intervention Fund.
Both opinions are substantively identical. Both authorities recall that the aim of the system
production quotas for sugar is to stabilize the market, considering its
traits that have deformed external relations.
Essential step in the implementation of the system was the adoption of the Law on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
who also instructs the government to instantiation within
timetable agreed in the context of the negotiations on the accession of the Czech Republic
into the European Union. A legal framework is thus determined.
Government is empowered to issue the regulation in addition to the law and the Constitution (Art. 78).
Aim of stabilizing the effort to maintain a certain volume of production and for export.
The system is based on the system of the European Union (Council Regulation
no. 1260/2001 / EC on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector).
Czech Republic by creating an identical system fulfills
arrangements resulting from the European Association Agreement between the Czech Republic
one hand and the European Communities and their Member States, on the other hand
(no. 7/1995 Coll.) a commitment to assume so. acquis communautaire
in agriculture (Art. 69-71). To the objection that
sugar production quotas represent an unconstitutional restriction of freedom
business, recalls that this right is the right choice. The Constitutional Court in its Judgment
3. 4. 1996, file no. Nos. Pl. US 32/95 (promulgated as no. 112/1996 Coll.
And published in the ECR, Volume 5, judgment no. 26), fundamental rights
categorized. Economic, social and cultural rights can only seek
within the law, which defines (Art. 41 of the Charter).
The same is provided directly by the freedom of establishment (Art. 26 paragraph. 2 of the Charter).
Investigated treatment is the subject of this statutory right and its
basis and in accordance with the Constitution issued subordinate adjustments.
Yet established quota systems (milk and sugar) correspond to those of the European Union.
Each entity has an interest to produce sugar, may acquire quotas from other
producer or request an allocation from the reserve. It is not true that access
market is closed. A group of opposition MPs to sanction removal
Ministry and the Fund point to the opinion expressed by the Constitutional Court in
judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. The legislator, and other allowed by their
consideration regulate production in a particular sector and the nature and number
entities are operating or limit the freedom of contract. This is especially
task of the legislature. The authorities point out that the purpose of punitive levy
is very discouraging excessive production. If her state may prohibit
may also discourage her from a punitive levy. Sanctions are a necessary complement
system of production quotas. The Ministry and the Fund recall that
in the European Union for allocation of quotas, taking into account only the current
manufacturers. Subordinate adjustment therefore deviate from the limits set by law.
At a resolution of the quotas allocated to the existing group of manufacturers was taken into account
past production. New or existing producers are not prevented from acquiring quotas
buys from other producers or the distribution of reserves.
Prioritizing current producers during the first allocation of quotas is necessary
to exclude speculators. Even with regard to the need for certain handicaps
New producers pointed Ministry and the Fund to the Constitutional Court on milk quotas
. Likewise, responding to an objection against the fundamental right to property
. The quota system is a form of control on the use of property
in the public interest. In the modern market economy, democratic states of Western Europe
such measures are common.
Public interest is the stabilization of the sugar market and maintain production of sugar beet at an affordable price
for growers. The Ministry and the Fund considered tool used for
reasonable. Recall that there is no expropriation.
Quota sugar produced only burdened levy, the manufacturer is not withdrawing.
The alleged conflict with the regulations in the European Union and the Ministry pointed
fund a new Council Regulation EC no. 1260/2001. There are tools used
identical instruments applied in the Czech Republic. They also dispute the assertion
group of deputies in the European Union regulation is performed
price. They reject the argument that the regulations in force in the European Union
is time limited, while the Czech Republic is not. The Ministry and the Fund
do not share the opinion of a group of MPs on the exclusion of the Administrative Code of
decisions on the allocation of quotas or punitive levies or exclusion
judicial review. The use of the exclusion or application of the Administrative Procedure
set for deciding various kinds of farm subsidies
can not infer anything other decisions under the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
. Explicitly excluded in any legal
regulation is neither a judicial review of the relevant decisions.
Ministry and the Fund have held that the government may not determine the amount of the provision at all. Publishing
provided information in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture has for the quota year
informative nature of the distribution of quotas in the quota
year. The Ministry and the Fund are of the opinion that the quality characteristics of sugar as
regulated products are determined independently of the legislation on market regulation
Agriculture Decree no. 334/1997 Coll. They reject the argument that
reference to this footnote decree is contrary to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court
. On the method of determining the minimum price for sugar
point to the fact that the Ministry of Finance is competent for its determination
by Act no. 526/1990 Coll. They argue that it is not desirable to determine the price
quota for five years. They propose rejection of the proposal
group of deputies.
Ombudsman shares the conviction of the unconstitutionality competencies Fund
establish a reserve of production quotas as well as the authorization of the Ministry of Finance
to determine the minimum price for sugar, both with reference to the wording of §
12 paragraph. 3 and 4 of the state agricultural intervention Fund.
Is convinced of the principle of equal access and request
objective method of calculating quotas according to § 12 para. 6 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
. Stresses that harms the producers, who
sugar in more than three years out of the five did not produce decisive and it produced only in small quantities
. Rejects in this respect the argument resting on a
interpretation of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence which allows
de facto division of the applicants into groups with completely unequal status.
Ability to produce sugar is given no past production, but the disposition
equipment in accordance with legal requirements. Recalls that § 7 of
Government no. 114/2001 Coll. creating a biased way
allocation of production quotas, which fails to take into account the possibility of selling or renting
manufacturing facility. The Ombudsman says that the Law on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
empowers Fund quotas only exploit, not to determine.
Procedural requirements for proceedings before the Constitutional Court are met.
The petition was filed by an authorized petitioner, the contested legislation were
adopted and issued within the bounds of constitutionally provided jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner
. The Law on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
true in the original version, and Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll. While it was
amended Government Regulation no. 296/2002 Coll. promulgated July 2, 2002 and since that day
also effective, but it contested provisions were not affected.
Constitutional Court in plenary on the issue of agricultural production quotas
express findings on proposals to repeal legislation twice.
Judgment no. 96/2001 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl. US 45/2000 14. 2. 2001
Published in the ECR, volume 21, judgment no. 30) granted
draft Cukrovaru V., Ltd., the annulment of Government Regulation no. 51/2000 Coll.
According to the Constitutional Court, the government issued a regulation to implement and within
Act no. 252/1997 Coll., On agriculture, as specified in Article. 78 of the Constitution.
Introductory Provisions Act (§ 1 and 2) restrictions on doing business in agriculture (Art.
26 and 41 of the Charter) in the form of production quotas envisaged.
The Constitutional Court did so with the knowledge that while Czech parliament has
Act no. 256/2000 Coll., Which production quotas knows, but examined
government regulation was not adopted for its implementation.
Judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl. US 5/01 from 16. 10. 2001
published in the ECR, volume 24, judgment no. 149)
The Constitutional Court decided on a petition from a group of deputies to annul Government Regulation no.
445/2000 Coll., on the milk production quotas for the years 2001 to 2005.
granted the petition in part and revoked his § 4 para. 2
due to lack of statutory authority to restrict the allocation of production quotas from the reserve || | for farmers farming in organic cattle and
§ 14 paragraph. 2 because of the unconstitutionality and illegality delegation
deciding the amount of reserves to the Ministry of Agriculture (Minister).
Milk production quotas in itself unconstitutional and illegal, the Constitutional Court, however, did not find.
The reasoning of the judgment, the Constitutional Court found the punitive levy under § 13 of Act No.
. 256/2000 Coll. constitutional, the attention, however, that the relevant provisions
group of deputies in the preamble to the proposal, although
described as unconstitutional the annulment but did not propose (given the size of the group
deputies and neither could successfully do so).
In the present proceeding, the Constitutional Court will evaluate the legislation, which resembles
treatment, which is already engaged. Arguments today's group of deputies
is similar. However, does not require cancellation of all the implementing regulation of government, but only
certain of its provisions. Furthermore, it is proposed to repeal the provision
Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund. The Constitutional Court therefore
in their decision was based on its earlier assessment, unless
finds major differences or changes the legal opinion. Rating solved
because things will follow the reasoning of the judgment no. 410/2001 Coll.
Purpose of applying production quotas limiting production to nemonopolizované
inspection volume. Motive for him is the effort to stabilize prices
markets without price regulation and promote customers
impose contractual Primus. Market stabilization does not occur by market forces
if it is jammed with massive state subsidies and protectionism.
Basis adjustment is national (state) production quota, which according to certain key
divided among the current manufacturers. Those will then manufacture
(collection, processing) production quota prohibited or discouraged from her
punitive levy. The new quotas are not granted at all or just a few
old may be shortened. The use of quotas in modern democratic state with a market economy
is rare. In Western Europe
applied in agriculture and parts of the food industry that affects customs
extensive protectionism and subsidies, due to political
recognition of general interest in his prosperity, so the action
farmers and agricultural enterprises as strong interest groups. Within
common agricultural policy of the European Community (EU)
used today only for dairy products and sugar. Similar goals and effects as
production quotas, the ban on cultivation or expansion
growing crops, such as wine.
Key issue solved the case, as the case rozhodnutého
judgment no. 410/2001 Coll., Is constitutional acceptability limit the amount of agricultural production
enforced punitive levy for overproduction.
Their evaluation in light of the fundamental (constitutional) principles of law and fundamental human rights
essentially comes down to a separate
search for answers to individual questions, as indicated by the current proposal of deputies and
Constitutional Court in its case law refuses to tear
fundamental principles of law, such as equality (Art. 1 of the Charter) and the adequacy
legislation (Art. 4 of the Charter) of individual human rights and freedoms, || | there are such fundamental right to property (Art. 11 of the Charter) and
freedom of enterprise (Art. 26 of the Charter). Violation of fundamental principles found
Reason for their intervention only if they were not respected when editing
exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Concerned fundamental rights are indeed included in the Charter of Rights and perceived as
different categories (first base as compared to the second as the Economic and Social
), they are closely related. Freedom
business is even referred to as a freedom derived from the right to
property. That view can give the truth only partially.
Business and other economic activity certainly represents a particular action aimed at creating
assets needed to provide life
needs. Their everyday result, the assets (in the modern economy
money) and that to protect the constitutional and international level European
fundamental right to property. Ownership of property (capital)
is moreover a prerequisite for starting a business and continuation.
Besides that, however, the business is a way of personal and group
fulfillment. Even the right to property is not to be conceived
own sake alone mediates the use of other fundamental rights and other
When assessing system of sugar production quotas as adjustments affecting
freedom of establishment may be based on an evaluation finding no. 410/2001 Coll.
According to Art. 26 Sec. 1 of the Charter everyone has the right to free choice of profession and
training for it, as well as the right to engage in commercial and economic activity
. Under paragraph 2 of the Act may impose conditions and restrictions
certain professions or activities.
The Constitutional Court also emphasized that neither the constitutional order nor international agreements on human
rights and fundamental freedoms forbid lawmakers limit the amount
production, distribution or consumption of goods. Therefore, the legislature may (
within the constitutionally guaranteed basic principles, human rights and freedoms
) in its discretion, introduce price or quantitative regulation
production in certain sectors of the economy, define or influence the type and number of entities
in it, or restrict contractual freedom when production
application on the market or in the purchase of raw materials and production equipment
. Claiming a group of MPs that restrictions can only be
qualification and similar prerequisites, described as excessively narrow interpretation of this provision
. From Art. 41 paragraph. 1 of the Charter is also clear that
economic, social and cultural rights, which include freedom
business can be exercised only within the confines of the laws. The Constitutional Court found
a value of constitutional importance of the free market free of all regulation.
Pointed to the limits of freedom of entrepreneurship in the European Union, where a market economy
directly declared a constitutional principle in the founding treaty.
He rejected the view that any restriction on freedom of establishment can only be done
law. To implement Act Constitution allows for practical reasons
adoption decrees, move if they laid down rules
within laws. The Constitutional Court pointed out that production quotas be applied in agriculture
democratic states of Western Europe, the countries of the European Union
then to a common model, with
not been found incompatible with global or European international, possibly with state
systems with national constitutional human rights standards.
The freedom of entrepreneurship as a fundamental right of the global
International Covenants on Human Rights is silent. Neither the postwar European standard
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Additional Protocols
knows it. Its derivation from guaranteed property rights and personal freedom
represents unreasonably broad interpretation, which is not supported by any
by the European Court of Human Rights. This is indeed similar
sectoral legislation, economic activity was never examined.
Only Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union knows
freedom to conduct business (economic activity), but allows its restrictions
European and national law. Charter additionally assumed the character of an international treaty
is just a political declaration. The definition of the concept of the Czech guarantee of freedom
business pursuant to Art. 26 of the Charter is therefore called a Constitutional Court.
Current foreign models while rather confirmed by the Constitutional Court
advocated a limited conception of liberty as a business law which the legislature must
fairly widely restricted.
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court rejects vouchers to freedom of occupation
(Art. 12 of the Basic Law) in connection with the treatment process performance
profession, but recognizes the wide scope for adjusting the legislature.
Tougher stance, in light of which the Czech legislative practice often about
not stand occupies only to many restrictions and requirements associated with
access to the field. The Federal Constitutional Court, however, did not deal with regulation
agricultural or other production through production quotas or similar measures
because it provides for priority and directly effective right
Concept constitutionally expressed freedom to conduct business, on which it could rely
group of MPs, could be found in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court
US in the 30s of the 20th century. His concept of freedom of contract and property rights was acknowledged to
essentially any economic policy measures
. Since the Great Depression, however, the Supreme Court against discriminatory
political interference into the situation in the various economic sectors
ceased to intervene.
In judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. The Constitutional Court has already stated on the edge of the penalty
levy under § 13 of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
equal to 115% of the minimum or regulated price
is an essential part of the system of production quotas.
Represents an appropriate sanction for the production překročivší individual quota. It can add that
possible substantially less effective penalty for overproduction is only
denial of public support.
The objection of a group of MPs that the production of sugar production quota is not
disabled, it may be noted that the legislation explicitly
many activities nezapovídá, however, is a disadvantage, and thus discourages.
Remind possible levy on the operation of slot machines or excise taxes
. Disadvantaging certain activity is a normal legal instrument
especially when it outright ban enforced by administrative or criminal
sanctions (fines, prohibition from exercising professional or imprisonment)
was overdone. The Constitutional Court cited judgment stated that if it is possible ban
overproduction, it means, of course, open space for its
disadvantage. Finally, it may be noted that neither standard clause on
elements of crimes ( "Who ... will be punished ...") in
Criminal Code offenses literally prohibits. Their
ban, however, no doubt. Voucher for unconstitutional removal of sanctions, without the express
ban negotiations, from which a punitive levy discourages can therefore
In judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. The Constitutional Court recapitulated
European and national conception of the fundamental right to property. He rejected the view that the restrictions
production constitutes expropriation that is not justified
public interest without compensation. He stated that the petitioner is not
ownership of milk produced above the production quota withdrawn.
Punitive levy supporting the production quota system obviously difficult or even impossible
sale overproduction. He stressed that the right to achieve
certain price in the market is not a fundamental right. He recalled that
system of production quotas represent a form of control the use of property, which is
introduced due to the public interest. The Constitutional Court emphasized that used
restrictive means should be proportionate to the objectives pursued. He accepted,
that there is a public interest to stabilize the milk market, and used
tools found reasonable. He recalled that also other measures
governing business or other economic activity have a major impact on his
(its) profitability. He rejected the view that the system of production quotas
quite impossible to enter the industry
pointing to the possibility of their acquisition by purchase or assignment of reserves.
The Constitutional Court did not feel called upon to assess whether the system of production quotas
represents the optimal solution and economically advantageous. He recalled that
production quota system is to prevent overproduction, already causing extensive
state subsidies to agriculture. The Constitutional Court stressed that the application
system of production quotas (limiting the amount of production) pursues the public interest
to discourage investment in the sector with overproduction. In his arguments
Constitutional Court pointed out that neither the European Court of Justice (body
EC) did not find a similar community measures - prohibition on planting vines -
disruption of European standard of ownership under Art. 1 of
Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Arguments used in its judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. in general applies
assessment system of sugar production quotas by Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll
. A group of deputies in the present case does not emphasize
unlike the previous draft, withdrawal of ownership of sugar produced over the limit.
The rejection of the argument concerning the withdrawal of the ownership of produced milk
Constitutional Court in the cited judgment can only add that in sectors
whose production volume is regulated system of production quotas, with production exceeding the limits
appears only in minimal, because sales are
imposition of sanctions dissipation is substantially prevented.
The current group of deputies objection is only the reference to discrimination
among the owners of the sugar facilities that production quota
received and can be produced without factual restrictions, and those who do not have
and their production is a result of the application
sanction removal impossible. The question of inequality in the ownership need to be considered in connection with the issue
general equality in the application of the system
production quotas for sugar.
Just on the edge, and as a further development of the Constitutional Court's reasoning in finding
no. 410/2001 Coll. It is therefore possible to refer to the case law of the European Court of Justice
. In its judgment on the action Metallurgiki
Halyps v Commission (258/81) stressed that Community restrictions
steel production in the public interest, even if they can endanger the profitability of the company,
not in violation of the right to property. It can also emphasize
that the European Court of Human Rights never evaluated the general legal measures
member states of the Council of Europe, which regulated the volume of production
with regard to their compatibility with European standards
fundamental right to property.
The limited application of systems of production quotas in agriculture
is usual in the European Union and some other developed countries the
social market economy. The present practice of constitutional and supreme courts
EU Member States and other democratic legal
States suggest that restricting production for reasons of price stabilization on
market at a certain level, they are fairly imposed on all existing
producers, would be incompatible with the national standard
property. That finding does not preclude their political
criticism, which is strong. Use of this form of economic management
is rare. There is no reason, however, the Constitutional Court to interpret Art. 11 of the Charter
otherwise. Not to be overlooked that one of the main motives for introducing
system of production quotas for certain agricultural and food products
was to create a framework that applies in the European Union.
Radical intervention by the Constitutional Court against the systems of production quotas would
a step towards such a concept
domestically guaranteed fundamental rights, which could not stand up after the planned accession of the Czech Republic
into the European Union.
It should be noted that the system of production quotas of sugar (milk), respectively.
Penalty levy for overproduction, which is being promoted, not suitable
compared with price regulation for the benefit of customers, when combined with Primus
contractual or forced preservation of existing contractual relations.
Constitutional Court pronounced judgment no. 231/2000 Coll. (Sp. Nos. Pl. ÚS 3/2000 of
21st 6th 2000 published in the ECR, volume 18, judgment no. 93)
incompatible with the fundamental right to property regulation of residential rents
by Decree no. 176/1993 Coll., on rent an apartment and pay for
services relating to the dwelling, as amended, with
referring to the fact that the apartment owners now not paid rent nor
maintenance, and so devalues their property.
In the case of production quotas of agricultural production nobody is forced to produce
so that he had to pay the levy. The purpose of the levy is contrary
discourage producers from socially undesirable overproduction. Penalty dissipation therefore be compared
rather with taxes and fees, which are intended to increase the price of certain
goods or services and reduce their consumption (
excise duty on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes or hydrocarbon fuels or charges
operation of gambling machines). The invocation of constitutional and international
no ownership in these cases when part of the equipment used after
Introduction or increase those taxes can not be used as
far and lose in price, because after the price increase will decrease demand
would certainly be regarded as unjustified. Rating
regulation of agriculture can not be reversed, even societal and out of the unfolding legal
evaluation of agricultural overproduction is not so steep.
It should be noted that the decline in utilization of production facilities
- and thus their prices - is not distinctive, if imposed restrictions on production
forcing existing producers to reduce current production. So it is generally
also on assessment of sugar production quotas.
Constitutional Court judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. rejected the idea that
unconstitutional discrimination constitutes unequal legal status of those producers who receive
quota, and those who do not ask for it. Differentiation is a matter of choice.
Requirement request for a quota is an administrative registration
The Constitutional Court also nepřisvědčil allegations of unconstitutional inequality between
current and new manufacturers. He recalled that
handicap for new entrepreneurs (who have to buy quotas from current producers or
hope for their precarious allocation from the reserve, however, while rival
currently existing producers) are an integral part of any reduction of the amount of production
. The goal handicap entry into the industry's interest in effecting
unwanted expansion of production capacity.
This is not to eliminate discrimination between producers who request for a quota
and get it in full, and manufacturers who are denied or granted
only partially. The provisions of § 12 para. 6 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
requires that the method of initial allocation
production quotas among applicants be governed by the principle of equality and objective
method of calculation. The general instruction, which is but a reflection of the principle of equality under Article
. 1 of the Charter and Art. 1 of the Constitution, it must be borne in mind
government in determining the method of allocation of quota within
individual systems of production quotas with respect to features and peculiarities of production
commodities whose production is subject to restrictions. The Constitutional Court can assess
key used in the original allocation of quotas.
Constitutional Court judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. one-year reference period
along with the generally established partial modifications recognized as reasonable.
While admitting that neither elaborated key, which remembers regular
causes fluctuation in production volume, can not take account of all the circumstances.
In particular cases this may result in injustices which, however, does not meet the constitutional
severity. He stood, however, with regard to the possible misuse of restraint
mitigation hardness on the basis of administrative discretion
For sugar production, the government foresees the determination of individual production quotas on the basis of production volume
three most successful in terms of quantity of production
seasons of the last five (§ 7 para. 1 of Decree no. 114/2001 Coll.), And
if not produced more than three seasons, according to seasons when it produced.
In this context we can not ignore the fact, referred to by the
group of deputies. Position of individual operators of sugar refineries because
influenced legislation in accordance with Government Regulation no. 51/2000 Coll.
prior to its annulment by the Constitutional Court. It was canceled for lack of legal support.
Additionally you can say, however, that it implied distinction
sugar mills in strategic and nonstrategic, including an exhaustive list
early in the text, whose operators enjoying immediate granting
production quotas directly, it can reasonably be considered suspicious qualification
(Suspect qualification methodology by the US Supreme court).
An arbitrary and difficult to justify a distinction between individual operators
sugar mills. At this point, however, must
deny claims made by MPs that the current legislation also introduces
such a resolution.
Method of calculation of individual production quotas adverse effects both on formal grounds
unconstitutional and substantively discriminatory by past
legislation only mitigates the fact that the decisive average annual quota
from the volume of production from all five seasons, which is subject to reporting
in the application pursuant to § 5 para. 3 of the Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll., but
counts is the fact that some sugar refineries were not all season
Operation, and takes into account the three seasons when they produced the most, or those
season when they produced when they produced for three years or less.
It is clear that inequality is not removed. It already produces
fact that, on the basis of measures already formally unconstitutional and substantively discriminatory
allowed some manufacturers to increase production because they were
protected from competitors who did not have a production quota, and could do so without
load punitive levy. The government today formally proper
future keeps undesirable condition which caused his former
both formally and substantively unconstitutional.
Not forgetting the fact, that a group of deputies points in passing
already rejected the arguments on the discrimination between existing and new producers
. Regulating sugar production undertaken by Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll
. not remember cases where a sugar factory (plant)
operated in the past entity other than today. To produce retransmission
race in the reporting period is disregarded. Sale of businesses and factories and
company mergers it can not be ruled out.
Selected key to the allocation of individual production quotas has been thrown into
inconsistent with the statutory requirement of an objective method of calculation (§ 12 para.
6 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund) and especially
constitutional requirement of equality under Article. 1 of the Charter, which also constitutes a constitutionally inadmissible
unequal legal content owned production facilities according to Article
. 11 paragraph. 1 of the Charter and unjustifiable distinction between
individual enterprises, which enjoy the same (ie, well groomed)
freedom to do business in accordance with Art. 26 of the Charter.
Unconstitutional, however, can hardly keep itself requirement on applicants to disclose
in an application for a production quota of its production of sugar in sugar
seasons 1996/97 to 2000/01 under § 5 para. 3 of the Government Regulation no. | || 114/2001 Coll.
In judgment no. 410/2001 Coll. The Constitutional Court found that the introduction of milk production quotas
is justified because it serves the public interest. This
guaranteed minimum price in an environment where state subsidies contribute to an increase
production which demand would not cause. State interventions in agriculture
are motivated by its social, economic and environmental
peculiarities. The Constitutional Court has recognized that production quota systems
agricultural products exist in the European Union, and denied that
national standard of human rights require a pure market economy
free of state interference. He expressed the same time reluctant to demand that
subject to strict control in terms of its necessity and desirability
actual legislation, which the state intervenes in the economy.
Stressed that the choice of economic policy is appropriate, Parliament
Czech Republic as a political body which bears political responsibility towards
voters for recognizing problems in the economy and the choice of instruments to address them
Similarly, the preferred occupation of the political authorities in developing systems of production quotas
growing wheat in the case Wickard v. Filburn
[317 U. S 111 (1942)] also expressed the US Supreme Court. His decision
is an example of restraint judicial review (judicial restraint).
Constitutional Court this argument no longer can essentially be applied to the assessment
production quotas for sugar, subscribes to an approach that takes
example. The US Supreme Court since the 30s of the 20th century, which ended with the practice of labeling
economic and social legislation incompatible with
absolutized contractual freedom and the right to property and acknowledged that
general shaping economic policy, including restrictions on business
is primarily a matter of political authorities. When evaluating legislation
sufficient rational basis test, a cursory check whether the measures introduced
may lead to the aim pursued. Production quota system monitors restrictions
production, which is disturbed state subsidy policy. This applies even if
if it is a measure only needed when preparing to enter the European Union
where such conditions exist.
Shift to a rigorous evaluation system of production quotas would force
Constitutional Court to evaluate the need and usefulness of government policy subsidizing and privileging
agriculture. The Constitutional Court would have in this case
lean toward some economic-political doctrine, there liberalism.
Such a step does not correspond to the relative political neutrality
Charter and the Constitution.
Reflections on the reasonableness and proportionality of the application of the system of production quotas for sugar
You can not lead without comparison with the model uniformly applied in
European Union, particularly with regard to preparing the Czech Republic for entry
into it. Restrictions on the amount of sugar production in the European Community has already
long tradition. The first time was as a response to overproduction introduced in the 60th
years. This in agriculture exceptionally stringent joint measures
The European Community responded to overproduction, which, however
caused part of the common agricultural policy and the intervention of the Member States
including subsidies, subsidies and market intervention, work intensification and concentration
sugar, which led to interference sugar mills.
Basis adjustments are EC Council Regulation on the single market order received more
years. This is followed by detailed Commission regulations.
For the season 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 is the basic regulation of the Council Regulation EC no.
1260/2001 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector.
Was adopted in the framework of the partial reform of the common agricultural policy. Its aim is to reduce
its fiscal demands and reduce overproduction.
Includes reducing sugar production quotas.
It identifies national quotas for individual member states.
Sugar is produced for the purpose of production quotas divided into groups. A sugar and B
is allowed to produce, although it also weighs charges. For sugar and makes
insignificant 2% of the intervention price. B sugar production levy burden
pronounced that production can certainly influence of 30 - 37.5%
intervention price. Its production does not enjoy such support and protection as
A sugar production, but rather it doesn't manage the fate of overproduction. This is referred to as C sugar
He allowed while to produce, but it must not be placed on the EC market.
The only legal use of sugar C is thus its exports. Any export of the
affects the levy. Its amount and method of determining adjusts permanently
adopted by implementing Commission Regulation no. 2670/81, so that C sugar
whose production is documented, but there is no proof of export to third countries, the burden
levy corresponding to the highest customs load
imports from third countries. This duty burden is high, because a single external trade policy
ES remains over the steps towards liberalization of the WTO (World Trade Organisation
- World Trade Organisation) in connection with the common agricultural policy
conservation. As well as generally paid
import of sugar into the Community shall be paid or overproduction of sugar.
Different approach to sugar A, B and C moreover reflected in the contradictory
subsidy and intervention policy. Production, processing, storage, sale and export of sugar
C compared to A and B sugar does not enjoy any interventions to maintain
desirable high intervention prices or subsidies to ensure sufficient
income of farmers and processors.
In the Czech Republic for the sugar used a single model sanctioning
overproduction of 115% of the minimum price (which is comparable with
intervention price). The model for this method of determining the levy for overproduction
been corrected milk production quotas in the Community under Council Regulation No.
. 3950/92. Charging overproduction of sugar in the EC is therefore in its results
comparable to those applied today in the Czech Republic, although
way of punishment overproduction is not the same. Czech Republic today, for example
unlike Poland is not giving a comparable system of production quotas, however
EC's intention to limit the production of sugar from the protectionist reasons
monitored and the results are comparable. Sugar production in excess of the quota
is not paid, and therefore from her waived.
If the Czech Republic in the years to join the European Union
, then, unless there is fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy
sugar, community standard with comparable effects will gradually
(anticipated due to a number transitional period) will also apply
her. In these months, completing the accession talks. One of the most difficult negotiation chapters
is no. 7 "Agriculture". There is as yet no
from candidate countries concluded the preliminary consensus on the method and timetable
involvement of its agriculture in the common agricultural market and the introduction
common agricultural policy. The main dispute is led by the amount of direct subsidies to farmers
candidate countries. For agricultural commodities, whose
Production reduces production quotas, but also there is no consensus.
Candidate countries want their agriculture were allowed without penalties
produce more than today, the European Community and the current Member States
want to allow.
In the case of sugar production in the Czech Republic is not a multiple difference, but
is not negligible. Czech Republic requires 505,000 tons
national sugar production quotas, which corresponds to today's comprehensive production quota
reserve by government decree no. 114/2001 Coll.
European Community provides for sugar and 441,000 tons of sugar and B
about 4,000 tons. Agriculture is undoubtedly politically extremely sensitive
both in Western and Eastern Europe. Sugar production in the Czech Republic and elsewhere
exhibits considerable seasonal fluctuations (in thousands of tonnes 610 1996/7, 1997/8
532 1998/9 470 395 1999/2000, 2000/1 and 2001/2 434 491 ).
In the last two seasons while producing already curbed production quota systems.
The Czech Republic produces excess sugar. The volume of exported sugar
consistently exceeded the volume of imported sugar (counts and sugar in foods and beverages
). Sugar imports into the Czech Republic while
hampered by import tariffs and quotas, while exports are supported.
System of sugar production quotas introduced today in the Czech Republic through
its peculiarities is incommensurate with the EC system.
Pressure to reduce sugar production in the Czech Republic from its side takes, which provides
reason for introducing and applying Czech sugar production quotas.
It is therefore necessary to reject the notion that every system of production quotas for sugar
leaning against the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund and secured
punitive levy according to § 13 presents its terms
international and European comparisons unusual finish.
Based on the provisions common to all systems of production quotas in
Czech agriculture in addition based system of production quotas for milk
while there is a punitive levy determined and stored as well as in the European
community. To repeal § 13 of the Act, therefore, no reason.
Constitutional Court in its judgment no. 410/2001 Coll.
not concede another sub-statutory delegation, according to which, according to the wording of the regulation under consideration
publication of the reserve for the following year in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture provides
Department (Minister). The current situation is similar
. § 4 para. 3 of the Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll.
calls for determining the amount of the reserve fund for distribution. The Constitutional Court can not be
opposite. The reserve requirement is the distribution system
production quotas according to § 12 para. 3 and 4 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
which has created Government Decree.
The claim by some parties on the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance
to determine the minimum price for sugar on the basis of Act no. 526/1990 Coll., As amended
is incorrect. Disregards the express provisions of §
12 par. 4 Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund. This
competency standard is clearly lex specialis to general price
regulations. Competence to determine the minimum price by the government, which has done so
its regulation. Voucher to the unsuitability of such a method
Pricing Regulation applicable for a period of several years, is moot.
Efforts to transfer skills to another authority, which uses
legally problematic form of price assessment is a result of the unwillingness
follow the recommendations of § 12 para. 5 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
to the Regulation on systems of production quotas
accepted "in principle" for a period of one year.
Rating competencies Fund is in the light of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
clear. Although it will not be called the Fund for distribution
quotas, but provides that the production quota system uses [§ 1 para. 2
point. d)], which implements measures and introduces market orders to stabilize
market for agricultural and food products (§ 1 para. 2).
Authorizing the allocation of production quotas at least evident from the context of the Act and
general provisions on the activities of the Fund. § 7 of Government Regulation no.
114/2001 Coll., Which is based on the objection of incompetence
proposed for abolition, are clearly unconstitutional primarily due preservation
unjustifiable discrimination between different manufacturers.
Group of deputies challenging model where government regulation could introduce
system of production quotas in a range that far exceeds their
use in the European Union. We can confirm that the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund does not
closer agricultural and food products
whose production may be curtailed production quota system. The rate
space for the implementation of severe restrictions, such as production quotas
, gets to the very limit of acceptability in terms
constitutional principles of separation of powers. Only legally indistinct restriction constitutes a voucher
commitments arising from the accession negotiations to the European Union according to § 12 paragraph
. 3 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund. About
excessive inclination to modify the regulations of evidenced by comparison with other countries.
For example, Poland, which also seeks to join the European Union introduces a system of production quotas
agricultural production and makes special
Act (Ustawa to regulate the market place of sugar in 2001). A group of deputies
not proposed repeal of the relevant provisions of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
about the substantive scope of the Act (
range of economic sectors subjected to regulation).
Contrary to Government Decree no. 445/2000 Coll., Which specifies
qualitative characteristics of cow's milk, and Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll. in note
line refers to other legislation. You can not share the opinion of a group of deputies
absence of a definition of sugar, since this legislation defines
entirely constitutionally acceptable manner (Ministry of Agriculture
no. 334/1997 Coll., Issued pursuant to and within the law no. 110 / 1997 Sb.)
quality characteristics of sugar, thus naturally produced in volumes
designated production quotas.
I can not share the opinion that § 5 para. 5 of the Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
excludes the application of the Administrative Procedure for deciding
Fund quota that limits its use for deciding on applications for aid
§ 1 par. 2. a group of deputies
ignores the systematic inclusion of the provision, which applies only to
granting aid. Exclusion of the Administrative Code does not open itself
administrative discretion and it exerted
impossibility of judicial review. The Constitutional Court has already stated that in cases
interpretative ambiguities have both administrative and judicial authorities to choose an interpretation that
ensuring greater respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, which also belongs
right to fair administrative procedures and a fair judicial process.
As already noted, the government in drafting Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll
. passed statutory recommendation to issue a regulation for one year.
Is not important, however, that the production quota system may be introduced
government regulations repeatedly or not without the intervention of the legislature.
Group of deputies seek nor after the Constitutional Court for the annulment of those provisions
Act on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund or Government Regulation no.
114/2001 Coll., Which, according to it constitute an unacceptable form of defining
sugar out judicial review nor lack of time constraints
application of the system of production quotas. Even if the Constitutional Court recognized these objections
, could not decide in this range.
For these reasons, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court, under § 70 para. 1
Act no. 182/1993 Coll., As amended by Act no. 48/2002 Coll., On abolishing § 4
paragraph. 3, § 5 para. 3, § 7 and § 13 of Government Regulation no. 114/2001 Coll., And u
§ 4, paragraph. 3 to conflict with Art. 78 of the Constitution, at § 7 for inconsistency with Art. 1
Charter, Art. 11 paragraph. 1 of the Charter and Art. 26 paragraph. 1 and 2 of the Charter and also
§ 12 paragraph. 6 of the Act on the State agricultural intervention Fund and § 13 for
conflict with Art. 79 par. 3 of the Constitution and also with § 12 para. 4 of the Act on the State agricultural intervention Fund
§ 5 para. 3 of the Government Decree no. 114/2001 Coll. Although
itself in conflict with the Constitution or the law may not be, however, the Constitutional Court also annulled
it is because of those other provisions closely related.
This fate could befall a number of other provisions of Government Regulation no.
114/2001 Coll., Their abolition was not designed and Constitutional Court in its decision
bound by the proposal.
Annulment of § 13 of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund
were the reasons set out in the reasoning of the judgment rejected under § 70 para. 2
Act no. 182/1993 Coll.
Chairman of the Constitutional Court:
Pp. JUDr. Holeček vr
The second part of the verdict rejecting the petition to annul § 13 of Act no.
256/2000 Coll., On the State Agricultural Intervention Fund and amending
some other laws (Act on the State Agricultural Intervention
Fund) took accordance with § 14 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional court, the dissenting opinion of judge
JUDr. Vladimir Cermak, Mgr. Pavel Holländer,
JUDr. Vladimir Jurka, Mgr. Elizabeth and Mr. Wagner. Eva Zarembová.